Delhi District Court
Raju vs State (Nc) Of Delhi on 6 September, 2018
1
IN THE COURT OF SH.NARINDER KUMAR:SPECIAL JUDGE2
NDPS ACT:(CENTRAL DISTRICT):TIS HAZARI COURT:DELHI
Crl. Rev. No. 622/ 2018
Date of institution: 01.09.2018 Decided on: 06.09.2018
In the matter of :
Raju .....Petitioner
Versus
State (NC) of Delhi ...Respondents
JUDGMENT
Petitioner herein lost his son master Prashant, aged about 10 years on 06.07.2012 due to electrocution after having come into a contact of a live electronic wire hanging from an electric pole installed by the BSES, Yamuna Power Ltd.
On completion of investigation, police submitted 2 an untraced report. The petitioner filed a protest petition dated 25.06.2015 seeking directions as prayed therein.
2. Vide order dated 27.07.2018, Learned Metropolitan Magistrate has dismissed the Protest Petition while observing in the manner as: "As per the reply filed by officials of BSES, the investigation carried out and the photographs on record, it is clear that the deceased died due to electrocution by coming in contact with live wife, which was hanging out illegally from the electricity pole, maintained and supervised by BSES, however, it could not be traced out by the police as to who was committing theft of electricity through the illegally connected wire to the pole or had connected that illegal wire to the same. Further, in the considered opinion of the court, as the incident is of 06.07.2012, no purpose shall be served by ordering further investigation at this stage. In view of the aforesaid, the untrace report is 3 hereby accepted and protest petition filed by the complainant/LR of deceased is dismissed.
3. Record reveals that police came into action on the basis of DD no. 25A recorded at police station Sadar Bazar, on the same day I.e 06.07.2012. The information to the police was that a boy had got electrocuted by the side of slaughter house and near the police station.
4. SI Devender Pranava took up the investigation and visited the place of accident and prepared rough site plan.
Another DD no. 30A was also recorded at 7:45 pm on the same day. This time, information was received from the casualty department of Hindu Rao Hosptial regarding admission of the child after electrocution.
5. The child died on 06.07.2012 at about 7:10 pm as opined by the doctor, who attended the patient. The dead body was got subjected to autopsy. Doctor opined that it was case of death due to electrocution and all the injuries 4 were antimortem in nature.
6. On 07.07.2012, at about 8:00 pm, site inspection was carried out by the officials of BSES, in presence of SI Devender Pranava and others.
As per memo prepared by the team from the BSES, Yamuna Power Ltd, on site inspection, PCC Pole no. F647 was inspected and it was found that some illegal wires of off size and different colours were found installed/hanging by tapping BSES L.V. mains/cable using the electricity illegally. The names of the offenders could not be known "for illegally using the electricity".
7. The Investigation Officer issued notice dated 09.07.2012 u/s 91 Cr.P.C. In reply dated 16.07.2012, BSES Yamuna Power Ltd., replied that the matter had been referred to Accident Committee to find out the cause of accident. Accident Committee submitted report on 23.07.2012, after examining five persons from the staff and other evidence. The finding was that "no one was 5 responsible for the accident".
8. Investigation Officer then issued letter dated 23.08.2012 raising query as who was responsible to check illegal tapping. BSES submitted reply dated 03.09.2012 that following two vendors were responsible as per the contract clause no. 1.2.2.
"1. M/s Pan Electricals Pvt. Ltd. 556, Main Gate, Dargah Hazrat Nizamuddin, New Delhi13, (Sh. Anil Kumar Pathak) Rim9312677852
2. M/S Manwick Electricals, Pvt. Ltd. Mahavira TowerII, Paschim Vihar, Community, Centre, New Delhi63, (Sh. Vipin Manocha) Rim9891880022"
It was further reported that BSES Yamuna Power 6 Ltd.(Enforcement Department) under the supervision of Assistant V.P. (Enforcement) at Gandhi Market, Minto Road, was also responsible for inspection and booking of direct theft in the area.
Ld. Counsel for the petitioner submits that in view of the material on record, Learned Metropolitan Magistrate should not have dismissed the protest petition, and rather issued directions for further investigation so as to find out as who were the persons responsible from two companies/vendors/contractors and from the BSES.
9. Learned Metropolitan Magistrate has dismissed the protest petition as noticed above, for the reason that it could not be traced out by the police as to who was involved in commission of theft of electricity and that the accident was of the year of 06.07.2012 and no purpose was going to be served with directions for further investigation.
10. So far as the first reason is concerned, in view of the material collected by the investigation officer, 7 investigation officer was to specifically point out as to who was the concerned official/staff of the two contractors responsible for the purpose of detection of illegally installed wire and connected to the pole, and to remove the same. It was also for the investigation officer to find out as to who was the concerned officer of the BSES, Yamun Power Ltd., responsible for the purpose of inspection of theft in that manner, but no investigation appears to have been carried out in this regard.
As regard the other reason that this case pertains to the year 2012, it could not be observed that no purpose was going to be served by way of giving directions for further investigation, the reason being that such investigation would be based only on documentary evidence and the same can easily be collected by the investigation officer. Any complainant cannot be allowed to suffer because of slow speed of which investigation is conducted by police.
811. In the given situation, the impugned order dated 27.07.2018 deserves to be set aside.
While allowing the revision petition. I order accordingly.
12. As a result, Trial Court record is ordered to be returned with directions to learned Metropolitan Magistrate to issue directions to the SHO, PS Sadar Bazar to carry out further investigation on the aforesaid aspects so as to find out the names of the person of the two contractors and staff of BSES Yamuna Power Ltd responsbile on account of negligence in performing of their duties.
13. Complainant is directed to appear before Learned Trial Court on 10.09.2018.
14. File of revision petition be consigned to record room. NARINDER Digitally signed by NARINDER KUMAR Announced in the open Court KUMAR Date: 2018.09.07 15:23:54 +0530 on this 6th day of September 2018 (NARINDER KUMAR) SPECIAL JUDGE, NDPS02 (CENTRAL) TIS HAZARI COURTS, DELHI